"by definition feasible" is a lot different than automatically declaring Brady the winner if weather was worse. You just said you could automatically declare him the winner, that you know he would have won. Now you're saying it's at least feasible. I still say he'd have gotten his *** kicked even worse if the weather was worse. Manning threw for a whopping 176 yards, so it isn't like that was going to dip that much. I am betting Brady's stats would have been affected a lot more.
By pointing out the prediction is by its nature defeasible I'm giving you or anyone the floor to disagree with it. You're right, it's different than what I initially said, but it's only a lot different if you're assuming I take myself to be God and know the outcome of contingent things before they occur. (I don't.) I made that claim in a discussion where someone claimed Manning is way better, so I made a strong claim that supported the opposite.
My point was that Manning plays poorly in bad conditions, Brady plays great, and from that alone I predict they would have lost. Of course that neglects a bunch of other factors, and you're justified in thinking the weather
could have made Denver's D more effective. But - and this is my point - if you look at Brady's performance in bad weather, I don't know why
anyone would draw that inference. (The natural inference to draw is that, unless Brady has only played bad defenses in crappy weather (possible, but I'm not aware of his), is that it affects a defense more than Brady.)
So we are only going to have a legitimate disagreement, from where I stand, if you present facts that show a) Brady is
not good in bad weather, b) Peyton is better than I am giving him credit for in bad weather, or, as we now seem to be heading, c) reasons for thinking a good defense would neutralize Brady more than the bad weather would neutralize a good defense.
